netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] connector/cn_proc: Performance improvements

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <FD84A5B5-8C98-4796-8F69-5754C34D2172@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 16:53:07 +0000
From: Anjali Kulkarni <anjali.k.kulkarni@...cle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Evgeniy
 Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "johannes@...solutions.net" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        "leon@...nel.org"
	<leon@...nel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "socketcan@...tkopp.net" <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        "petrm@...dia.com"
	<petrm@...dia.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] connector/cn_proc: Performance improvements



> On Jun 1, 2023, at 9:48 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 16:38:04 +0000 Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> The #define FILTER and ifdefs around it need to go, this much I can
>>> tell you without understanding what it does :S We have the git history
>>> we don't need to keep dead code around.  
>> 
>> The FILTER option is for backwards compatibility for those who may be
>> using the proc connector today - so they do not need to immediately
>> switch to using the new method - the example just shows the old
>> method which does not break or need changes - do you still want me to
>> remove the FILTER? 
> 
> Is it possible to recode the sample so the format can be decided based
> on cmd line argument? To be honest samples are kinda dead, it'd be best
> if the code was rewritten to act as a selftest.

Yes, I can recode to use a cmd line argument. Where would a selftest be committed? This is kind of a self test in the sense that this is working code  to test the other kernel code. What else is needed to make it a selftest?

Anjali